An armored vehicle typically comprises armor plates mounted on the sides, roof and the bottom of the vehicle. The substantial weight of the armor paneling creates a tradeoff between the operational weight of the vehicle that can be effectively handled by the vehicle engine versus the amount of armor necessary to protect the occupants and critical systems of the vehicle from likely threats. Accordingly, the vehicle armor is typically concentrated at the sides of the vehicle where the majority of the hostile fire will likely strike the vehicle, while the top and the bottom of the vehicle are relatively lightly armored to reduce the overall operational weight of the vehicle. In addition, the side armor plates used for armored vehicles have improved to the extent that penetrating the side armor of a vehicle with conventional weaponry has become very difficult. Advanced weaponry, such as High Explosive Anti-Tank (“HEAT”) warheads fired by large bore cannons, is often required to eliminate to destroy or disable an armored vehicle through the side armor.
Accordingly, many anti-armored vehicle weapon systems used by combatants without access to advanced weaponry seek to exploit the vulnerable underbelly or top of the vehicle rather than seeking to overcome the thicker armor at the sides of the vehicle. In particular, mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) seek to exploit the thinner bottom armor plates of most armored vehicles by detonating beneath the vehicle to direct shrapnel and a concussive blast through the thinner bottom armor into the crew compartment. As a result, many new designed armored vehicles incorporate additional armor plating or specialized armor plating designed specifically for combating mine or IED attacks on the underside of the vehicle and other features to improve the protection of the underside of the vehicle. However, many older armored vehicles, such as the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles, are still susceptible to mines and IEDs.
An approach to improving the protection to the crew compartment and the critical systems of older vehicles is to add additional armor plating to the existing armor on the underside of the vehicle. The additional armor reduces the likelihood that the crew will be injured and/or critical systems damages, but substantially increases the weight of the underside armor. In addition to the challenge of determining how to mount additional armor over the existing armor, the additional weight extra armor can place considerable strain on the frame and sidewalls of older vehicles, which are designed for thinner, lighter armor panels. The strain can weaken the frame and increase the likelihood that the frame will fail during a mine or IED attack.
Similarly, an alternative approach is to remove the existing armor and to attach improved armor specifically directed to combating mines or IED attacks. However, as the vehicle is already assembled, removing the existing armor and affixing the new improved armor can be hindered by the existing vehicle assembly. The attachment points at which the existing armor is attached to the vehicle must be accessed and disengaged to remove the armor. Accessing the attachment points between the bottom armor and the vehicle through the structure of the assembled vehicle can be very difficult. Similarly, accessing the same attachment points to affix the replacement panel can be equally challenging. As a result, the replacement of existing armor with different armor plating can require considerable maintenance and downtime. The considerable time necessary to configure a vehicle to counter a specific threat presents substantial logistical challenges and can limit the abilities of the vehicle.
The increased use of IEDs and mines in certain conflicts has created a need for improved protection of the underside of crew compartments for armored vehicles. In addition to the need for improved protection, there is need for quickly and efficiently to returning the vehicles to operation or configuring vehicles to counter specific threats such as IEDs and mines,